Re: dumb transports not being welcomed..

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > IMHO the culprit is git-rev-list, which takes ages and ages for big 
> > repositories (beware: this could be my Darwin client which might be 
> > incapable to stop the rev enumeration in time; but if that can be done 
> > unintentionally, this can be intentionally, too!).
> 
> Packed too?

Yes. Almost all of it.

> git-rev-list will take a long time if the tree is unpacked and not in the 
> cache. It's all disk seeks. That's _especially_ true of a full clone 
> (which will walk the whole way down).

That could be the case, but my test case is a CVS project I track on one 
side, and I fetch on the other side. Therefore, your diagram from your 
other mail does not really apply. My history looks more or less like this:

a b c d origin
          |
          |
          |
          |
\ \ \ \   |
 ---------|

So, the origin is a linear CVS project. With many, many, many commits. At 
one stage I broke off new git branches. I kept tracking the CVS project, 
though.

What I see when fetching all heads (thanks to Junio, this is one call to 
git-fetch now), where all but origin are up to date, is that it takes a 
very long time. Swapping kicks in, and top tells me that 26.6% of the 
memory is occupied by git-rev-list (The server has 128M, with 1G swap, and 
I am unfortunately not the only user of this machine).

I fail to see why it should need those amounts of memory. (I tested this 
over the ssh protocol, which should essentially do the same as git-daemon, 
right?) After all, the merge point between the branches should be marked 
uninteresting after one single step from each of my private branches.

> But I have tons of memory in my machines, and I haven't looked at how 
> badly it does if you don't have that. I know that master.kernel.org is 
> certainly not having any trouble at all with me pulling from lots of 
> trees.. Maybe git-rev-list uses up lots of your memory.

That certainly is the case.

As for master.kernel.org: Unfortunately, you will not be the only puller. 
And if your process needs just 5% of the RAM, then 21 pullers will be too 
many.

> That said, I do think that --objects handling is _very_ CPU-hungry.

In my experience, before the swapping started, the process did not get 
more than 20% CPU.

Nevertheless, I still think that it would be a good idea to reuse the 
files created for the dumb transport for the intelligent transport. 
Especially for a project which is more often fetched than uploaded.

I also see other strange things like packing 0 objects, and packing >0 
objects after just having fetched from that repository. Hopefully I will 
have time to look into that (and understand the code to begin with).

Ciao,
Dscho